dind
firejail
dind | firejail | |
---|---|---|
3 | 139 | |
2,307 | 5,449 | |
- | - | |
0.0 | 9.7 | |
almost 6 years ago | 3 days ago | |
Shell | C | |
Apache License 2.0 | GNU General Public License v3.0 only |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
dind
-
SELinux is unmanageable; just turn it off if it gets in your way
> ...anything that expects to be managing docker inside docker.
Now that's an interesting problem to have!
If you trust those tools and don't have untrusted users or untrusted code, you can sometimes just mount /var/run/docker.sock and use the VM/VPS/server's Docker directly. It is actually the approach that was used by excellent tools like Portainer, though it's also really risky as well.
Alternatively, you can try to just run Docker in Docker (DinD), which is a bit more tricky and the opinions there are split about whether to do it and when to do it: https://github.com/jpetazzo/dind
Of course, someone might also jump in and suggest that Docker is architecturally problematic (i don't care much, just want my containers to run, then again; i don't deal with untrusted code or any sort of multitenancy) and you should use Podman or another set of technologies, which is interesting advice but would necessitate other approaches.
In short, like with most technologies: Docker and OCI container in general get more messy as your requirements become more advanced. For the problems that they do solve easily (app packaging), they are pretty good, though!
- Docker in docker situation running into errors
-
Weird question: Is it possible to run docker inside of a docker instance?
Yes, that cal docker in docker, for do it you need share the master's partition, please check https://github.com/jpetazzo/dind
firejail
-
Sandboxing All the Things with Flatpak and BubbleBox
bubblewrap is designed as a low-level too. There is nothing quick and dirty about it. It disallows everything by default and you have to be explicit about what you want to share with the host. If your application needs complex permissions/resources, then you will need to have a complex bubblewrap command line.
Once you have figured out which permissions/resources you need for a given program, you can wrap the command line invocation in a shell script.
If you want other people to do the work of defining permissions/resources, then have a look at firejail: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail
-
Ask HN: What are some unpopular technologies you wish people knew more about?
Firejail is cool: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail
Linux namespaces/cgroups but nowhere near as heavy as Docker.
I use it when I want to limit the memory of a Python script:
```
-
Toolship: A (More) Secure Workstation
Firejail can also be a useful option, though no good if you're on Mac https://firejail.wordpress.com/
Uses the same Linux primitives as docker etc, but can be a bit more ergonomic for this use case
-
Firejail: Light, featureful and zero-dependency security sandbox for Linux
Firejail, Flatpak (which uses Bubblewrap under the hood), and Snap (which uses AppArmor) all use the same underlying technology: Linux namespaces.
This question comes up a lot, and has been answered here: https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/wiki/Frequently-Asked-...
TL;DR: Firejail has much more comprehensive features than Flatpak (Bubblewrap). Firejail also has more comprehensive network support, support for AppArmor and SELinux, and easier seccomp filtering.
Compared to Snap (which uses AppArmor), Firejail is compatible with AppArmor and again goes above and beyond with a lot of additional features.
-
Bubblewrap – Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak
Wonderful little tool, too bad you must chain various exec calling tools to get cgroups (a bit akin to `ionice ... nice ... cmd`) and Linux users namespaces can't allow UNIX sockets while preventing network access (I think?).
Migrated from Firejail when its complexity annoyed me too much and I hit https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/issues/3001 (Firejail doesn't like parens or brackets in --put/--get parameters) to a badly NIH version using bwrap and bash to have "profiles":
- Firejail: Light featureful and zero-dependency security sandbox for Linux
-
Do, or do not. There is no try
Firejail does this. The profile database is the two "profile" directories in https://github.com/netblue30/firejail/tree/master/etc
-
Strange times make for strange friends...
What do you mean by a Firefox container? Do you mean FireJail?